DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.8 of 2012
Prafulla Kumar Sahu, aged about 57 years, S/o. Late Bhimasen Sahu, Occupation – Teachership, R/o. Badbazar, Tentulighat, Sonepur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur
………….. Complainants
Vrs.
1. Chief Manager, The State Bank of India, Sonepur Branch, At/P.O./P.S. – Sonepur, District - Subarnapur
2. Chief Controller, ATM Project Department, State Bank of India, State Bank Global IT Centre, Wing-B, Ground Floor, Sector 11, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for Complainant ………. Sri S.P. Mishra,
Advocate for the O.Ps. ………. Sri G.S. Panda & Sri P.K.Purohit
Present
Sri S.C.Nayak, President
Smt.S.Mishra, Lady Member
Sri H.Padhan, Male Member
Date of Judgment Dt.02.02.2018
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
The complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
The case of the complainant is that he is having a saving account in the branch of O.P. No.1 and he was issued with an A.T.M. Card vide No.6220180108500078184 for the purpose of withdrawal of money.
It is alleged by the complainant on 12.6.2012 at about 11.40 P.M. while the complainant went to the A.T.M. counter near the S.B.I., Sonepur and operated the A.T.M. site – II, then neither money nor any advisory slip came from the A.T.M. and the total system was defunct. After few minutes the complainant got a telephonic message that the aforesaid amount had been deducted from his account. After this the complainant went to the branch and after verification he came to know that an amount of Rs.39,000/- has been deducted from his account.
After this the complainant gave written complaint before O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 on 15.12.2012 without any inquiry merely gave a letter to the complainant in which the debit of the amount has been mentioned.
-: 2 :-
Therefore the complainant avers that there has been gross negligence from the side of the O.Ps. The complainant avers that he was in urgent need of money for his medical expenses and as he could not get the required amount, he has sustained heavy loss. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint praying that the O.Ps. be directed to pay him Rs.39,000/- towards the money not withdrawn by him. He has also claimed Rs.50,000/- towards mental tension, agony etc. and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.Ps. were noticed in this case. The O.P. No.1 has filed written version. He has averred that the complainant is not a consumer. There is no cause of action against the O.Ps. This O.P. further avers that whether money has been withdrawn from the A.T.M. or not is a matter of enquiry and the complainant be directed to prove the same by producing documentary evidence. This O.P. further avers that after getting complaint he has taken sincere efforts and searched the documents relating to transaction. After search and verification of documents this O.P. found that transaction was successful and cash was dispensed from the A.T.M. This fact has been intimated to the complainant vide letter No.PBD/57 dt.15.6.2012.
This O.P. further avers that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his allegations. On the other hand the O.P. has filed documents to show that the transaction was successful. This O.P. avers that the transaction slip which is automated computer generated copies itself shows that money has been dispensed from the .A.T.M. As such this O.P. prays that the complainant be dismissed with exemplary cost.
As both parties remained absent on the date of final hearing, we are disposing the case basing on the materials available on record. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed.
1. Is the complainant a consumer ?
2. Has he successfully proved that he has not withdrawn money from the concerned A.T.M. ?
3. What order ?
We find that the complainant is an account holder of the Bank of O.P. No.1. As an account holder he must be maintaining minimum balance in his account and he must be paying the necessary charges. So he is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
-: 3 :-
Issue No.2 and 3 are taken together as they are inter-related. In the instant case the complainant himself has filed the letter No.PBD/57 dt.15.6.2012 and the transaction slip that has been supplied to him by the O.P. No.1. Upon perusal of the same we find that the transaction was successful . The transaction slip discloses that on the relevant date at 11.42 P.M. the complainant has withdrawn Rs.39,000/- from the concerned A.T.M. by using his A.T.M. Card No.622018010850078184.
It has been observed by the Punjab State Commission in the case of Rajnikant Upadhyaya Vrs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (2012) C.P.J. 2011 as follows :-
“ That A.T.M. Card could only be used if the customer inputs his personal four digit identification number, which is selected by him (Customer), and not by the Bank. However, in the interest of security, the customer is advised to retain his PIN Code in his memory, so that no one else is privy to this information. The reverse of the A.T.M. Card has a magnetic strip and white strip for signatures of the Card holders. The magnetic strip contains the card holders details. This card can be used to gain entry into the A.T.M. enclosure by swiping it in the access lodge. In other words, unless a person is in possession of the relevant A.T.M. Card and knows the four digit PIN Code, the same (ATM Card) cannot be used and operated. As a matter of further precaution, in case the PIN Code is entered wrongly, thrice in succession, the A.T.M. will retain the card itself or cancel it permanently. There is no averment in the complaint to the effect, that the complainant lost his A.T.M. card at any point of time. There is not even a fleeting reference in the complaint having been made by the complainant that some body had stolen his A.T.M. card and misused the same.
In view of the elaborate procedure having been evolved by the O.Ps. regarding the use of A.T.M. card referred to above, it was not at all possible to withdraw the money from the account of the complainant through A.T.M. by any person other than him. In State Bank of India Vrs. K.K.Bhalla, Revision petition number 3182 of 2008 decided on 7.4.2011, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, Similar principles of law was laid down. In these circumstances, there was neither any deficiency by rendering service on the part of O.Ps. nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was also right in holding so. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. The observation made by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission squarely applied to the present case. In view of above we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that he has not withdrawn money from the concerned A.T.M. on the relevant date.”
-: 4 :-
It is trite and settled law that the case of the complainant either stand or fall on its own. The complainant cannot take advantages of the latches of the O.Ps. In the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vrs. M/s. K.L.M. Rayal Dutch Airlines 1999 (III) C.P.J. 28 (S.C.) it was held that the burden of proving the deficiency of service is upon the person who alleged it. In the instant case the O.P. has filed the transaction slip in order to show that the transaction was successful. So the complainant ought to have adduced evidence in order to show that the transaction was not successful. In the case in hand the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegation by cogent and convincing evidence. For the reasons stated above, we are left with no alternative but to dismiss the complaint.
In the result this complaint case is dismissed. However we refrain from awarding any cost.
Dated the 2nd February 2018
Typed to my dictation
I agree. I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Pradhan, Smt.S.Mishra, Sri S.C.Nayak
Male Member Lady Member President
Dt.02.02.2018 Dt.02.02.2018 Dt.02.02.2018
